SpaceX
SpaceX’s Crew Dragon launch moves to March, risking Falcon Heavy delays
The planning date for the launch debut of SpaceX’s Crew Dragon spacecraft has been pushed to no earlier than (NET) March 2019 per sources familiar with the matter, potentially creating a direct schedule conflict with the company’s planned operational debut of Falcon Heavy, also NET March 2019.
At the same time as delays to the Commercial Crew Program continue to increase the odds that NASA will lose assured access to the International Space Station (ISS) in 2020, both of SpaceX’s critical missions are entirely dependent upon the support of its Kennedy Space Center-located Launch Complex 39A (Pad 39A), creating a logistical puzzle that will likely delay Falcon Heavy’s second launch until Crew Dragon is safely in orbit.
The latest updates that #SpaceX has made to LC-39A. They have made a lot of progress with the cladding in the last month. #Falcon9 #Space #Spaceflight #SpaceCoast #Florida #KSC @NASASpaceflight pic.twitter.com/sq76IKDc3K
— Tom (@Cygnusx112) February 2, 2019
As of the first week of December 2018, SpaceX was reportedly planning towards a mid-January 2019 launch debut for Crew Dragon. By the end of December, DM-1 was no earlier than the end of January. By the end of January, DM-1 had slipped to from late-February to NET March 2019. Put in slightly different terms, SpaceX’s Crew Dragon launch debut has been more or less indefinitely postponed for the last two months, with planning dates being pushed back at roughly the same pace as the passage of time (i.e. a day’s delay every day).
Admittedly, DM’s apparently indefinite postponement may well be – and probably is – more of an artifact than a sign of any monolithic cause. While the US government’s longest-ever shutdown (35 days) undoubtedly delayed a major proportion of mission-critical work having to do with extensive NASA reviews of SpaceX and Crew Dragon’s launch readiness (known as Readiness Reviews), much of the 60+ day DM-1 delay can probably be attributed to the complexity of the tasks at hand. Being as it is the first time SpaceX has ever attempted a launch directly related to human spaceflight, as well as the first time NASA has been back at the helm (more or less) of US astronaut launch endeavors in more than 7.5 years, significant delays should come as no surprise regardless of how disappointing they may be.
- Crew Dragon and its crew-rated Falcon 9 went vertical at a launch pad (Pad 39A) for the first time ever on January 4th. (SpaceX)
- The whole shebang. (SpaceX)
- The integrated DM-1 Crew Dragon ‘stack’ rolled out to Pad 39A for the first time in the first few days of 2019. (SpaceX)
- A render of Crew Dragon launching atop Falcon 9. (SpaceX)
The most consequential aspect of DM-1’s two-month (at least) delay will likely be the myriad ways it feeds into delays of SpaceX’s in-flight abort (IFA) test and first crewed launch (DM-2), and thus’s NASA’s ability to once again independently launch US astronauts. Given that SpaceX’s DM-2 is expected to occur around six months after DM-1 and that the final certification of Crew Dragon for official astronaut launches will likely take another 2-3 months, these delays – barring heroics or program modifications – are pushing NASA dangerously close to the edge of losing assured US access to the International Space Station (ISS).
According to a July 2018 report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) analyzed the Commercial Crew Program and NASA’s human spaceflight program more generally and concluded that NASA would lose assured access to the ISS in November 2019 if Boeing and SpaceX continued to suffer delays and were unable to reach certification status by then. This comes as a result of NASA’s reliance on Russian Soyuz launches for access both to and from the ISS, launch and return service contracts which have no replacements (aside from SpaceX and Boeing). While GAO noted that NASA could likely delay that loss of assured access until January 2020, even that might be pushing it if SpaceX’s DM-1 delay continues much further.
“[While NASA is working on potential solutions, it] has not yet developed a contingency plan to address the potential gaps that [future delays in Boeing and SpaceX schedules] could have on U.S. access to the ISS after 2019.” – GAO, July 2018
Prior to DM-1’s delay from NET January to NET March 2019, SpaceX was targeting an In-Flight Abort test roughly three months after DM-1 (it will reuse DM-1’s Crew Dragon capsule), DM-2 six months after DM-1 (NET June 2019), and NASA certification and the first operational astronaut launch (PCM-1) as few as two months after DM-2 (August 2019). It’s reasonable to assume that delays to DM-1 will impact subsequent Crew Dragon launches roughly 1:1, as DM-2 and its many associated reviews hinge directly on DM-1, while the same relationship also exists between PCM-1 and DM-2. As a result, Crew Dragon’s two-month delay probably means that SpaceX’s NASA certification will occur no earlier than October 2019, giving NASA no more than 90 days of buffer before the US presence on the ISS drops from around 50% (3 astronauts) to 0%.
An excellent view of #SpaceX Launch Complex 39A – better known as Pad 39A – from a February 4th Air National Guard (180th Fighter Wing) flyover. Of note, SpaceX has painted the FSS (tower) black and white and is in the process of installing transparent cladding. pic.twitter.com/DTiGWJk1D7
— Eric Ralph (@13ericralph31) February 5, 2019
Crew Dragon and Falcon Heavy walk into a bar…
The unexpected delays to Crew Dragon’s DM-1 launch debut are likely placing SpaceX in an awkward situation with respect to the operational launch debut of Falcon Heavy, meant to place the terminally delayed Arabsat 6A satellite into orbit no earlier than March 7th, 2019 (at the absolute earliest). DM-1 is also targeting a launch sometime in March, posing a significant problem: both Falcon Heavy and Crew Dragon can only launch from Pad 39A, while the on-site hangar simply doesn’t have the space to support schedule-critical Falcon Heavy prelaunch work (mainly booster integration and a static fire test) and no less critical Crew Dragon launch preparations simultaneously.
- SpaceX’s 39A hangar is massive but it would be a stretch to support Crew Dragon and Falcon Heavy simultaneously. (SpaceX)
- An impressive view of Crew Dragon (DM-1), Falcon 9 B1051, and its upper stage. (SpaceX)
Much like SpaceX’s inaugural Falcon Heavy rocket spent a month and a half fully integrated and more than two weeks in a static-fire limbo (albeit due to one-of-a-kind circumstances) before its launch debut, SpaceX’s second Falcon Heavy rocket – comprised of three new Block 5 boosters and Heavy-specific hardware upgrades – is likely to take a good deal more time than a normal Falcon 9 for prelaunch processing. Almost all of that Heavy-specific testing depends on the rocket being integrated (i.e. all three boosters attached) for preflight fit and systems checks and a wet dress rehearsal (WDR) and/or static fire ignition test.
It’s entirely possible that SpaceX integration technicians are able to complete the process of swapping out Crew Dragon and Falcon 9, modifying the transport/erector (T/E), completing Falcon Heavy booster integration, and installing Falcon Heavy on the T/E quickly enough to allow for simultaneous DM-1 and Arabsat 6A processing. It’s also possible that an extremely elegant but risky alternative strategy could solve the logistical puzzle – as an example, SpaceX could roll Crew Dragon and Falcon 9 out to Pad 39A a week or more before launch to give Falcon Heavy enough space for full integration, whereby Falcon 9’s necessarily successful launch would clear the T/E and allow it to be rolled back into 39A’s hangar for Falcon Heavy installation.
Falcon Heavy at the Cape pic.twitter.com/hizfDVsU7X
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 20, 2017
The most likely (and least risky) end result, however, is an indefinite delay for Falcon Heavy Flight 2, pending the successful launch of Crew Dragon. This is very much an instance where “wait and see” is the only route to solid answers, so wait and see we shall.
Check out Teslarati’s newsletters for prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket launch and recovery processes!
News
SpaceX tells the FCC that Starship Flight 14 is going to orbit
SpaceX filed with the FCC for Starship Flight 14, its first true orbital launch attempt.
SpaceX has asked the Federal Communications Commission for permission to fly Starlink terminals during Starship’s fourteenth flight test, and the filing lays out a genuine trip to orbit, something the program has never attempted.
Every Starship flight so far, including Flight 13’s successful splashdown in the Indian Ocean on July 24, has flown a suborbital arc that ends with the ship reentering the atmosphere within the same hour it launches. The FCC paperwork describes a mission profile built around an actual orbital insertion instead.
The payload is the other half of the story. Flight 13 carried 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, but because that mission never reached orbit, the satellites reentered along with the ship rather than joining the constellation, something Teslarati covered in detail after SpaceX released footage shot from one of those satellites as it drifted away from Starship in space. Flight 14 is designed to close that gap. If the orbital insertion holds, the roughly 20 V3 satellites onboard would separate into an operational orbit and could eventually go into service, each one rated for about 1 terabit per second of downlink capacity by SpaceX’s own account.
SpaceX announces new Starbase for ‘thousands of Starship launches annually’
Elon Musk first flagged the orbital attempt during SpaceX’s August 4 earnings call, the company’s first as a public entity following its June IPO under the ticker SPCX. He also floated catching the ship with the Starbase tower on the same flight, an idea he walked back on August 20, saying the catch attempt would more likely come “in a few months,” as Teslarati reported at the time. Flight 14 will instead target a splashdown for the ship in the Indian Ocean, the same recovery method used since Flight 12.
Hardware has been catching up to the ambition. Booster 21 completed a full 33-engine static fire on August 28, and Ship 41 finished its own six-engine test the week before. An airspace briefing circulated to pilots on August 20 listed September 15 as the target date, later than the end of August window Musk mentioned on the earnings call, though SpaceX has not confirmed a launch date publicly and Starship schedules routinely slip while hardware and FAA paperwork line up.
The FCC filing itself does not guarantee a launch date. It covers communications authority, and not flight readiness, considering SpaceX still needs Ship 41 fully stacked and cleared by the FAA before Flight 14 can fly. But the filing is a real marker of intent and it puts a specific regulatory process behind what had so far only been Musk’s word on the earnings call.
Elon Musk
SpaceX would not exist if this crucial early launch failed, Musk says
Elon Musk recently restated a fact that still defines SpaceX’s origin story: if Falcon 1’s fourth launch had failed, the company would not exist. The comment answered a reminder that after three consecutive losses, SpaceX had money for only one more attempt.
On X, Peter Diamandis said that the present-day acknowledgement of SpaceX’s success does not discount the rough start the company had. “Almost nobody remembers that Elon’s first rocket failed three times, and there was money for exactly only one more attempt.”
Musk said, “If the 4th launch had failed, SpaceX would not exist.”
If the 4th launch had failed, SpaceX would not exist
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 30, 2026
In late 2008, the firm was nearly out of cash. Another failure would have ended payroll, closed the Hawthorne factory, and left the Falcon 9 and Dragon programs as unfinished drawings.
The first flight lifted off from Omelek Island on 24 March 2006. Thirty-three seconds later, a corroded aluminum fitting on a fuel line leaked. Kerosene ignited around the Merlin engine, control was lost, and the vehicle came apart. The small DARPA payload, FalconSAT-2, survived the short flight only to land on a storage shed near the pad. Investigators later traced the fitting to a materials mix-up that should never have reached the rocket.
Flight 2, on 21 March 2007, looked far better at first. The first stage burned cleanly and handed off to the Kestrel-powered upper stage. The vehicle crossed 100 kilometers and reached a peak of about 289 kilometers. Then propellant slosh in the second-stage tank started a circular coning motion that grew until the engine shut down. Telemetry faded as the stage tumbled, and SpaceX had reached space but not orbit. Over the next year, the team redesigned everything from the ground up, including tanks, baffles, and the new regeneratively cooled Merlin 1C.
That engine flew on Flight 3 on 2 August 2008. The first stage performed almost perfectly and reached 217 kilometers. After main-engine cutoff, leftover fuel in the cooling channels produced a faint residual thrust, roughly 10 pounds per square inch of chamber pressure. On a Texas test stand, the effect was invisible beneath ambient air pressure. In vacuum it was enough to push the spent first stage back into the second stage after separation. The stages collided, the upper stage spun, and the mission was lost. Musk later said a slightly longer delay before staging would have saved the flight.
Six weeks later, the team assembled Flight 4 from remaining parts and flew it on 28 September 2008 at 23:15 UTC. The payload was Ratsat, a 165-kilogram aluminum mass simulator built in-house. Staging was delayed so residual thrust could decay. The Kestrel ignited, the fairing split away, and nine and a half minutes after liftoff the vehicle was in orbit. After a coast, the second stage restarted, settling into a 621-by-643-kilometer path at 9.35 degrees inclination. Falcon 1 became the first privately developed liquid-fueled rocket to reach Earth orbit. Musk called the insertion “middle of the bull’s-eye.”
SpaceX restores a Falcon 1 rocket for 10th anniversary of first launch success
That success unlocked NASA’s Commercial Resupply Services award later that year. Without it, there would have been no Falcon 9, no reusable first stages, and no Dragon cargo or crew flights to the International Space Station. Launch prices would have remained far higher. Starlink’s constellation would not exist; broadband from low Earth orbit would still be a paper concept.
Ride-share markets, high launch cadence, and the current pace of lunar and Mars hardware would be years behind. Communications, Earth observation, and the cost of putting anything into space would look more like the 2000s than the 2020s.
One extra second of residual thrust in August 2008 would have written a different decade.
Elon Musk
OpenAI cites distrust of SpaceX in decision to drop Cursor partnership
OpenAI will cut SpaceX-owned Cursor’s model access in November, citing Musk’s history of broken contracts.
OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT, announced late Friday that it is ending its partnership with Cursor, cutting off the coding tool’s access to its models on November 12. The move comes two weeks after SpaceX completed its $60 billion acquisition of Cursor’s parent company, Anysphere, folding the popular AI coding assistant into Elon Musk’s growing SpaceXAI division.
In a post on its website, OpenAI said the decision came down to trust, not technology. “We cannot be confident that SpaceX will use our technology within our terms of service, based on our experience with Elon Musk’s companies violating contracts,” the company wrote. OpenAI pointed to two specific incidents: X, now part of SpaceX, allegedly breaking the terms of an existing OpenAI contract after Musk bought Twitter.
That lawsuit is the backdrop for all of this. Musk cofounded OpenAI in 2015, left the board in 2018, and sued Sam Altman and Greg Brockman in 2024, arguing they abandoned the company’s nonprofit mission for profit. A federal jury sided with OpenAI in May, finding Musk waited too long to sue rather than ruling on the merits of his claims. Musk said at the time he would appeal to the Ninth Circuit, calling the outcome a “calendar technicality” rather than a real judgment.
SpaceX’s interest in Cursor predates that verdict by weeks. The company first struck a deal with Cursor in April, securing an option to acquire it for $60 billion or pay $10 billion for joint development work instead. As Teslarati reported at the time, the logic was straightforward: Cursor was paying retail prices to Anthropic and OpenAI, two of its most direct competitors, every time a developer used its product, while SpaceX had idle capacity on its Colossus supercomputer, roughly the equivalent of a million Nvidia H100 GPUs, that Cursor could use to train its own models instead. SpaceX exercised the option in June, days after its own IPO, and the deal closed in mid-August.
Once it closed, Musk moved fast. On an all-hands call with more than 1,000 Cursor employees, he reportedly told staff that SpaceXAI’s Grok was playing catchup in the AI race, unlike Tesla and SpaceX in their own markets, and singled out Anthropic as the company to catch. Cursor CEO Michael Truell now reports directly to Musk inside SpaceXAI.
Losing OpenAI’s models leaves Cursor leaning harder on Anthropic’s Claude, which has its own compute agreement with SpaceX, and on Cursor’s in-house Composer model, the one SpaceX’s compute was supposed to accelerate in the first place. OpenAI framed the November deadline as maximum notice under its contract, and said it wants to “go above and beyond” to help developers through the transition. Whether Anthropic makes the same call is now the open question in AI coding.





